Does a public single payer system deliver integrated care? A national survey study among professional stakeholders in Denmark

Background: Integrated health care delivery is a goal of health care systems; to date there has been limited information on the integration of medical care in practice. Purpose: To examine and compare perceptions of clinical integration and to identify associated strategic, cultural, technical and structural factors. Design and setting: A national survey addressed to: all county administrative managers (n=15); all hospital managers (n=44); and randomized selected samples of hospital department physician managers (n=200) and general practitioners (n=700) in Denmark. Results: Several initiatives have been implemented in Denmark to integrate care. Nevertheless, most physicians agree that only half of all patients experience well coordinated pathways. Clinical integration is a strategic priority at the managerial levels, but this is not visible at the functional levels. Financial incentives are not used to encourage coordination. The information communication technology to facilitate clinical integration is perceived to be inadequate. Conclusion: The scope for improvement is high due to the structural composition of the system. Increased managerial stewardship, alignment of the financial incentives, and expanded use of information communication technology to link sub-organisations will be a way to move the system forward to meet its explicit goal of providing an integrated delivery of services

Measurement of integrated healthcare delivery: a systematic review of methods and future research directions

Background: Integrated healthcare delivery is a policy goal of healthcare systems. There is no consensus on how to measure the concept, which makes it difficult to monitor progress. <br><br> Purpose: To identify the different types of methods used to measure integrated healthcare delivery with emphasis on structural, cultural and process aspects. <br><br> Methods: Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WHOLIS, and conventional internet search engines were systematically searched for methods to measure integrated healthcare delivery (published – April 2008). <br><br> Results: Twenty-four published scientific papers and documents met the inclusion criteria. In the 24 references we identified 24 different measurement methods; however, 5 methods shared theoretical framework. The methods can be categorized according to type of data source: a) questionnaire survey data, b) automated register data, or c) mixed data sources. The variety of concepts measured reflects the significant conceptual diversity within the field, and most methods lack information regarding validity and reliability. <br><br> Conclusion: Several methods have been developed to measure integrated healthcare delivery; 24 methods are available and some are highly developed. The objective governs the method best used. Criteria for sound measures are suggested and further developments should be based on an explicit conceptual framework and focus on simplifying and validating existing methods

Coordination between primary and secondary healthcare in Denmark and Sweden

Introduction: Insights into effective policy strategies for improved coordination of care is needed. In this study we describe and compare the policy strategies chosen in Denmark and Sweden, and discuss them in relation to interorganisational network theory. Policy practice: The policy initiatives to improve collaboration between primary and secondary healthcare in Denmark and Sweden include legislation and agreements aiming at clarifying areas of responsibility and defining requirements, creation of links across organisational boarders. In Denmark many initiatives have been centrally induced, while development of local solutions is more prominent in Sweden. Many Danish initiatives target the administrative level, while in Sweden initiatives are also directed at the operational level. In both countries economic incentives for collaboration are weak or lacking, and use of sanctions as a regulatory mean is limited. Discussion and conclusion: Despite a variety of policy initiatives, lacking or poorly developed structures to support implementation function as barriers for coordination. The two cases illustrate that even in two relatively coherent health systems, with regional management of both the hospital and general practice sector, there are issues to resolve in regard to administrative and operational coordination. The interorganisational network literature can provide useful tools and concepts for interpreting such issues

Are joint health plans effective for coordination of health services? An analysis based on theory and Danish pre-reform results

Background: Since 1994 formal health plans have been used for coordination of health care services between the regional and local level in Denmark. From 2007 a substantial reform has changed the administrative boundaries of the system and a new tool for coordination has been introduced. <br><br> Purpose: To assess the use of the pre-reform health plans as a tool for strengthening coordination, quality and preventive efforts between the regional and local level of health care. <br><br> Methods: A survey addressed to: all counties (n=15), all municipalities (n=271) and a randomised selected sample of general practitioners (n=700). <br><br> Results: The stakeholders at the administrative level agree that health plans have not been effective as a tool for coordination. The development of health plans are dominated by the regional level. At the functional level 27 percent of the general practitioners are not familiar with health plans. Among those familiar with health plans 61 percent report that health plans influence their work to only a lesser degree or not at all. <br><br> Conclusion: Joint health planning is needed to achieve coordination of care. Efforts must be made to overcome barriers hampering efficient whole system planning. Active policies emphasising the necessity of health planning, despite involved cost, are warranted to insure delivery of care that benefits the health of the population

Needs of Head and Neck Cancer Patients and Stakeholders During Rehabilitation

The foreseen growth of Head and Neck cancer (HNC) incidents will require future rehabilitation services to meet the needs of a wider population. This study reports the empirical findings of a case study conducted at a cancer rehabilitation center in Copenhagen, aiming to elicit the needs of HNC patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Our results point out that patients and stakeholders' needs are interrelated, as they faced common challenges pertinent to provision and distribution of information. This study, though preliminary, underlines the importance of inclusion of all actors in the design of future interventions

Power and Agenda-Setting in Tanzanian Health Policy: An Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

Background: Global health policy is created largely through a collaborative process between development agencies and aid-recipient governments, yet it remains unclear whether governments retain ownership over the creation of policy in their own countries. An assessment of the power structure in this relationship and its influence over agenda-setting is thus the first step towards understanding where progress is still needed in policymaking for development. Methods: This study employed qualitative policy analysis methodology to examine how health-related policy agendas are adopted in low-income countries, using Tanzania as a case study. Semi-structured, in-depth, key informant interviews with 11 policy-makers were conducted on perspectives of the agenda-setting process and its actors. Kingdon’s stream theory was chosen as the lens through which to interpret the data analysis. Results: This study demonstrates that while stakeholders each have ways of influencing the process, the power to do so can be assessed based on three major factors: financial incentives, technical expertise, and influential position. Since donors often have two or all of these elements simultaneously a natural power imbalance ensues, whereby donor interests tend to prevail over recipient government limitations in prioritization of agendas. One way to mediate these imbalances seems to be the initiation of meaningful policy dialogue. Conclusion: In Tanzania, the agenda-setting process operates within a complex network of factors that interact until a “policy window” opens and a decision is made. Power in this process often lies not with the Tanzanian government but with the donors, and the contrast between latent presence and deliberate use of this power seems to be based on the donor ideology behind giving aid (defined here by funding modality). Donors who used pooled funding (PF) modalities were less likely to exploit their inherent power, whereas those who preferred to maintain maximum control over the aid they provided (ie, non-pooled funders) more readily wielded their intrinsic power to push their own priorities

A retrospective analysis of health systems in Denmark and Kaiser Permanente

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP$1,951 (KP) and PPP$1,845 (DHS).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Compared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.</p

Self-Management Support to People with Type 2 Diabetes - A comparative study of Kaiser Permanente and the Danish Healthcare System

BACKGROUND: Self-management support is considered to be an essential part of diabetes care. However, the implementation of self-management support within healthcare settings has appeared to be challenging and there is increased interest in “real world” best practice examples to guide policy efforts. In order to explore how different approaches to diabetes care and differences in management structure influence the provision of SMS we selected two healthcare systems that have shown to be comparable in terms of budget, benefits and entitlements. We compared the extent of SMS provided and the self-management behaviors of people living with diabetes in Kaiser Permanente (KP) and the Danish Healthcare System (DHS). METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from a random sample of 2,536 individuals with DM from KP and the DHS in 2006–2007 to compare the level of SMS provided in the two systems and identify disparities associated with educational attainment. The response rates were 75 % in the DHS and 56 % in KP. After adjusting for gender, age, educational level, and HbA1c level, multiple linear regression analyses determined the level of SMS provided and identified disparities associated with educational attainment. RESULTS: Receipt of SMS varied substantially between the two systems. More people with diabetes in KP reported receiving all types of SMS and use of SMS tools compared to the DHS (p < .0001). Less than half of all respondents reported taking diabetes medication as prescribed and following national guidelines for exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Despite better SMS support in KP compared to the DHS, self-management remains an under-supported area of care for people receiving care for diabetes in the two health systems. Our study thereby suggests opportunity for improvements especially within the Danish healthcare system and systems adopting similar SMS support strategies

Is the Kaiser Permanente model superior in terms of clinical integration?: a comparative study of Kaiser Permanente, Northern California and the Danish healthcare system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Integration of medical care across clinicians and settings could enhance the quality of care for patients. To date, there is limited data on the levels of integration in practice. Our objective was to compare primary care clinicians' perceptions of clinical integration and three sub-aspects in two healthcare systems: Kaiser Permanente, Northern California (KPNC) and the Danish healthcare system (DHS). Further, we examined the associations between specific organizational factors and clinical integration within each system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Comparable questionnaires were sent to a random sample of primary care clinicians in KPNC (n = 1103) and general practitioners in DHS (n = 700). Data were analysed using multiple logistic regression models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>More clinicians in KPNC perceived to be part of a clinical integrated environment than did general practitioners in the DHS (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 2.28, 4.12). Further, more KPNC clinicians reported timeliness of information transfer (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.62, 3.13), agreement on roles and responsibilities (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.47) and established coordination mechanisms in place to ensure effective handoffs (OR = 6.80, 95% CI: 4.60, 10.06). None of the considered organizational factors in the sub-country analysis explained a substantial proportion of the variation in clinical integration.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>More primary care clinicians in KPNC reported clinical integration than did general practitioners in the DHS. Focused measures of clinical integration are needed to develop the field of clinical integration and to create the scientific foundation to guide managers searching for evidence based approaches.</p